We’ve now had two senior members of the Bush Administration — one-time Acting AG James Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller — give testimony that appears to contradict Alberto Gonzales’ sworn testimony about illegal NSA spying. But all three men have tap danced around what is meant by the terms “terrorist surveillance program” that was “acknowledged by the President.” Instead of watching Tony Snow imitate Ron Ziegler, it’s time for these men to tell the truth — the whole truth, because their word games are in reality covering up what are likely to be multiple felonies.
Glenn Greenwald [update: and Marty Lederman] already gave us the right questions: What does the program called “TSP” include? Is the TSP the same program about which Comey testified when he said that he and other top officials of the Department of Justice were prepared to resign because of the program’s illegality? Or was he talking about a different program [or vintages thereof] or programs? What was involved in each of these programs? And which program was the subject of the hospital room meeting involving Gonalzes, Card and Ashcroft?
These are straightforward questions, and each of the officials above knows the answers. Congress has a right to know what the government is doing, whether it is illegal and how it came to be approved. Congress also has an obligation to find out why three of the most senior Administration officials responsible for upholding the law appear to be accusing each other of lying about matters that involve one or more programs that the Acting Attorney General and Attorney General Ashcroft found to be illegal and over which they and the Director of the FBI were prepared to resign. If the illegality relates to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as appears almost certain, then the “illegality” involves multiple felonies.
And in case the media is confused about where this leads, Reagan era DoJ official Bruce Fein made it clear for everyone on Hardball: What about Tony Snow’s denials? “He’s Ron Zeigler during Watergate.” So what? Can Congress put Gonzales in jail for lying? “No. . . . What they can do and have to do is begin impeachment proceedings.” See MSNBC video for “Gonzales in trouble.”
I think the country has had enough of Gonzales and enough of these word games. Drag every one of these Bush officials before a closed hearing, put them under oath and order them to sort this out. Then provide a credible explanation to the American people and let us know who is telling the truth and who isn’t, and what should happen to the latter. If any official refuses to cooperate, hold them in contempt of Congress and pursue prosecution of the liars. If this turns out as we all expect, then start impeachment investigations and add this entire sorry episode to the list of impeachable offenses. Enough.
Related posts:
- When and To What Degree Was John Ashcroft Read Into the Illegal Surveillance Program?
- Brennan Provides Gonzales-Like Obfuscation on Illegal Surveillance Program
- George Bush Personally Sent Card, Gonzales to Thug Up Ashcroft
- Surveillance Program Violates Fourth Amendment, DNI Blair’s Office Says
- IG Report: Ashcroft Complained He was Misled by CIA, Too
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Good morning!
Good morning Scarecrow!
Hey tommy good to see you. Hugs for the little guy. Did you show up because Scarecrow said “enough”? :)
I’ve been wondering about this very thing, ever since I heard Gonzo testify months ago. There was no doubt, to me, that he obliquely referred to the existence of another, unknown, domestic surveillance program. Other ‘Lakers, smarter people than me, I might add, think it’s the pre- or post-modified TSP. I’m not so sure.
egregious @ 2
Hey ‘gregious! Ha ha, no. Not even I am so parochial.
If I showed up every time somebody said “enough,” I’d have to move in with Christy!
Esten’s kickin’ butt, by the way.
Morning scarecrow.
Remembering the summer of 1974, I think the tipping point has been reached and this will lead to multiple violations and impeachment.
Tommy-glad Esten is doing great!
Quote:
“If you believe in the form of government as set out in our founding documents then it’s increasingly clear that the radical position is not favoring impeachment but opposing it.”
brilliant–closed hearings are the obvious solution!! Wow. What a breakthrough for demoncracy, saved (again) by the closed hearing. (Though I find you’re suggestion they should be put under oath during these closed hearings rather cynical.)
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..t-bitchez/
The Attack Fox program is going to take a few days to get running while they build their database of participants.
We can get a jump by starting with a prime faux advertiser: Applebees
http://www.applebees.com/GuestLanding.aspx
^ Bottom of the page lets you email suggestions. Tell them you and your friends will find other places to eat as long as they support faux.
i can’t understand what’s going on. members of congress have known that this (illegal nsa spying) was going on for years…. even if they haven’t know the details.
and they have shown almost no interest in getting to the bottom of it. (i exempt senator feingold – who courageously submitted his censure resolution).
i didn’t listen to all of yesterday’s hearing yet. but most of what i did hear was incredibly frustrating (representative davis was the exception).
i am so sick of the kabuki! enough already! i’m sick of the D leadership telling us how bad the Rs are while refusing to take any action to actually correct things.
Did anyone else have problems getting into the comments section this morning?
I was receiving a Wordpress database error for several minutes this morning. Seem OK now.
“Give truth back”
Testing 1-2-3
I fear for our constitution and our country.
Okay, sorry about that. Someone tripped over the power cord.
tommy – thank you so much for sharing the good news on estan!
All better, now?
Scarecrow, GREAT entry. I’ll be sending it out to all my “political pals” as a succinct summary and trail guide to what’s going on. [I’ve urged all of them to come to the lake, but, y’know . . .]
I do a mini-happy dance when someone gets the grammar correct!! Thanks!! [I am a REALLY cheap date!!]
Buenos dias! Un cafecito, por favor.
selise @ 15
Yep — best wishes to the little guy.
IrishJim @ 10
Yep. I was wondering what that weirdo message was. Thought I’d just hit the wrong key.
mauimom @ 17
Once married to an English instructor. However,, my typping suks.
Im glad FDL is back.
Great post.There is no excuse for our country to be doing these tap dances or spying either.
A sign of the times will be who pops up as guests on Sunday morning shows. The usual WH shills? Or how about some serious Senators presenting the real issues at stake here.
Meanwhile over at Awful Joe…sheesh. I mean, I love my family, but I….oh, well. Timmeh rules.
All I can say is, can Imus come back soon enough.
Or was he talking about a different program or programs?
I think that anyone who believes that this administration has limited itself to only *one* illegal program is, well, let’s settle for “naive”.
Scarecrow @ 21
Bahahaha. Sounds like you might have been “marred” to that English instructor.
If I bashed my head into my keyboard over each it’s/its and their/they’re error, I’d have a very sore head and no keyboard.
Could it be that this superdeedooper secret spy program was used on the congresscritters themselves? That might be one reason there’s been so much foot dragging.
selise @ 9
This is my worry selise, that somehow the Dems have been complicit in a highly illegal spying-on-citizens program. If so, that might explain why they are so reluctant to impeach.
The other explanation is that they are amassing evidence and allowing public support for impeachment to build, ultimately painting Congressional Rethugs into a corner, if they hope to get re-elected.
I hope the latter is the case, but I am fretting the former explanation may be playing a role here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmsOIjzQ1V8
I got a huge laugh from this and I needed it. Its a bit off color.
Still gotta wonder what Bush’s end game is here. Nearly all of what we’ve been discussing are actionable offenses that will be covered by the statute of limitations when (if?) they leave office.
It seems the only way for these folks to avoid prosecution, is to nullify the Constitution and declare Martial Law. Yet I’ve heard recently that all but one standing Brigade is deployed overseas. You couldn’t possibly sustain martial law with 30,000 troops and local authorities.
So what does Dick Cheney have up his sleeve to keep
himthem all out of The Hague?selise @ 9
Nader is right about there being 1 monster with 2 heads.
The president has already admitted in public that wiretapping without warrants has occurred. Further testimony by high white house officials on the TSP vs. unknown gathering activities would certainly be informative, but they are not required in order to move forward with impeachment. And this leaves to the side the potential Hatch Act violations, and other violations of this Administration.
What is required, I believe, is a concerted effort to change Democratic Majority opinion regarding impeachment. They simply will not impeach anyone unless the Democrats themselves begin feeling some concerted pressure. More than concerted–extreme. Extreme pressure. This is something they simply do not want to do, and will not do, unless they are forced to it.
Just after 9/11 Fox News reporter Carl Cameron reported that 200 Israeli citizens suspected of belonging to a organized intelligence operation were being detained and investigated by Federal officials.
It was also reported that an Israelli firm generated billing data that was “alleged” to be used by those arrested for intelligence purposes. Camerons report described concerns that the U.S. governments “wiretapping” program could have been compromised. I believe that communications billing firm was Amdocs or Comverse Infosy.
Where does this investigation stand? And why was Fox News forced to take this report off of their website? You can find the four part report at You Tube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dUoydYdOBQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo
The Information Clearing House website used to have all four reports at their site. For some reason you can no longer view the report at that site.
http://www.informationclearing…..le7544.htm
Great, succinct post Scarecrow.
Contacted Applebee’s. Thanks. Looking forward to being a Fox blocker.
Me3 @ 8
OT:
While watching the local news in Central Iowa last night, they discussed the findings of their latest poll:
46% of the polled registered voters are in favor of impeaching Bush.
54% are in favor of impeaching Cheney.
Sorry, I could not find a link to the news segment on their website discussing the impeachment numbers.
On a positive note, Edwards is leading the Democratic field in their latest poll. Go Edwards!
When almost half of the registered voters sampled are in favor of impeachment in a conservative Midwestern state, you know the tide is turning.
mauimom @ 25
Those are not usually grammar errors; they’re really typos — the brain has it’s own spell check and it’s grammar check running simultaneously, but only one is connected to the fingers at a time.
These things happen, but they’re not Bush’s fault. He is too busy restoring the dignity of the Office of Preznit to be involved in day-to-day government affairs like these. He’s the CEO Preznit, dammit! After all, there are bike rides to take and movies to watch. Also, it’s hard work being Cheney’s puppet.
Hi Scarecrow,
When I heard Gonzales first talk about this program, I remember something like this:
Senator: …and was there any dissent about this program?
Gonzales: There was no dissent about the program the President approved.
I got the feeling that each time they asked that question, Gozales jumped ahead to the “compromise” program and said that everyone was fine with that.
Just listened to Tony Snow and I think the White House has decided that it is to their advantage to change the spin to top secret progamS about which no one can speak.
Later on in the hearings, I began to wonder about more than one program. But not in those original answers. I’ll have to go back and watch again.
Scarecrow @ 35
Thank goodness Firefox spell checks as I go along. I cant type either.
Once again, thank you Scarecrow, caw!
Is it possible that the illegal version of the TSP was actually a program that automatically compiled a portrait (or dossier of sorts) on any given citizen at the touch of search button; and the corrections made were to a) stop it! and b) destroy the database?
And who thinks they’d destroy the database?
oh! and
Good Morning!
YAY Esten!
Robinson’s op-ed today is great. Again. It’s lines like this that are rapidly making him my go-to columnist at the Post:
“Gonzo answered the question, all right — inadvertently, of course: “There are no rules.”
That’s the guiding philosophy of this administration. As far as these people are concerned, there are no rules of common decency. There are no rules of customary practice. There are no rules governing respect for the truth, or even respect for the privacy and health of an ailing colleague.
And we all know who sets that tone.”
(my bold)
At the White House, they must hate Gene.
Me3 @ 8
“This is not a complaint about a specific restaurant.
Rather, my complaint is about Applebee’s continuing support of FOX News.
FOX News channel has consistently been one of the most strident mainstream purveyors of intolerance and hate speech in this country, with Bill O’Rielly being the most egregious.
On his television program he recently went so far as to compare liberals with Nazis and the KKK and Applebee’s, as an advertiser, helped him spread this message.
I am disappointed that Applebee’s continues to support this kind of speech; ignoring the content of the outlets you advertise with. I urge you to reconsider advertising on FOX News. Reconsider sponsoring intolerance and disinformation.
Until then, I will no longer choose Applebee’s restaurants because, unlike you, I DO care where my money goes.
Thank you,”
Democrat Sylvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee told the President to use his OWN powers to continue the terrorist surveillance program after Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said there is an URGENT need to track such communications as such protocols as VOIP can go through the USA to connect terrorist communications. So the DEMOCRAT chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is telling the President to do it unilaterrally. One assumes this does give President Bush the authority to do this without Congressional authorization. See:
http://online.wsj.com/article/…..lenews_wsj
Speaking of intelligence, did everyone watch democracynow yesterday? Amy had on
So far, the employees of the private firms are mainly ex-CIA, and were trained by the CIA (ahem, think about the economics of this for the taxpayer; pay to train ‘em, then pay ‘em, what, double what they’d get working for the govt?). But about 5 years from now, when they all retire, there will be few left with the ethic to work for the U.S., and the intelligence info will be able to be completely manipulated for private purposes. It you think it’s bad now, . . .
Elliott @ 40
I was looking at emptywheel’s timeline, and it looks like MZM might have been involved in that and might have destroyed the database once Darth Cheny got the keys to all the DOJ investigations and realized that MZM and Dusty Foggo came under investigation…unless this is yet another program.
Jim Clausen @ 5
I also remember the 1st march on the Penatgon was seven years earlier. Johnson passed that shit on to Nixon and I’m not convinced the same thing won’t happen again with these gutless Democrats.
“But all three men have tap danced around what is meant by the terms “terrorist surveillance program” that was “acknowledged by the President.”
Scarecrow has it right. Great confusion and clouds of smoke arise. All the tesimony concerns what I’ll call the “front end”…labels and names. If helpful, let’s look at it from the “back end”….raw capabilities. Forget, for the moment, legalities, warrants, permission-slips, etc. Let’s look at pure capabilities:
1. interception of foreign phone calls to/from points outside USA
2. same as #1, but phone call begins or ends inside USA
3. interception of cell phone calls
4. interception of fax transmissions
(a) purely foreign
(b) foriegn to USA
(c) purely domestic
5. interception of email, with subparts as in #4 above
6. interception of banking transactions, foreign or domestic
7. interception of credit card transactions, foreign or domestic
8. interception of phone calls based on software ecognition of “key words”…software scoops up a mention of a key-word, and flags it. A 2nd software program reviews the entire transmission, and, if parameters so instruct, the entire transmission is flagged for automatic review by a THIRD software package. If still “fishy”, the transmission gets flagged for human review.
9. voice recognition: software reviews all voice phone calls and “flags” transmissions matching voice-prints in the data base
10. “block” interception: equipment scoops up ALL transmissions from a specified geographic area (ie, a six block area inhabited primarily by…Arab-Americans, etc)
Now then, the above is by no means exhaustive. So, what happened? What’s going on? Two probabilities:
A. ALL of the above is labeled TSP. When the NYT discovers, say….#2 above, Bush “admits” to #2 but fails to disclose the other components as listed above.
OR
B. ie, #2 above is labeled “TSP”. The other stuff listed above each has it’s own “name”. Bush admits to #2, the “TSP’, and is “technically” being truthful, but refuses to mention the other programs as listed.
Either way, as Scarecrow writes, violations happened. Most likely, the large majority of the above “capabilities” were “unleashed” on citizens of USA. Hope this helps.
Ghostman
Regarding the NYTimes’ article by Risen and Lictblau which opened this can of worms:
The Times acknowledged that it held the article for more than a year (but I’ve not learned the exact time) but the paper might have been able to publish at least a good draft before the the 2004 election.
From Calme, the Public Editor, article on Aug 13 2006:”Mr. Keller declined to explain in detail his pre-election decision to hold the article, citing responsibilty to preserve the confidentiality of sources. He has repeatedly indicated that the major reason for the publication delays was the administration’s claim that everyone involved was satisfied with the program’s legality. Later, he has said, it became clear that questions about the progam’s legality ‘loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood’”.
Calme goes on to mention that the Times’ perceived that some of the sources might not be credible and that it would not be fair to publish very close to the election date without giving all parties time to respond.
Sorry can’t make links and am off cause another thunder storm coming thru.
Me3 @ 8
Gracias. I’ve just informed Applebee’s that my kids love going to Applebee’s but that I can no longer take them there as long as they continue to advertise on Bill O’Reilly. (I was tempted to go for Faux News altogether, but I figured we might have a better chance of getting them to pull their advertising from just one show).
Good morning Liberty Lee — I agree with you that Reyes made a stupid mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.
LibertyLee @ 42
You know that the CIA, FBI NSA and so forth are involved in spying and black ops which is essentially outside the law.
They are given a pass because they keep us safe … supposedly.
But what they do is often so unlawful the people would be up in arms if they knew. The spooks don’t want to reveal their lawlessness. The kill, they blackmail, they kidnap, the wire tap and use every trick in the book to advance the “agenda”.
It’s ugly.
Subway Serenade @ 29
Martial law can be declared using the standing the National Guard in each state. In fact that would be the preferred way to go if one wanted to declare martial law, since you immediately gain local control.
Martial Law
I made a point yesterday and I want to make it again today;
if we remember, when skooter was commuted I said I thought the cia would go balistic and let loose with some information that should have been released long ago
it was pretty obvious the president was blackmailed into investigating the breach of our natinal security and the exposure of Valery Wilson
the cia pressed the issue, insisted on the investigation and made it clear to the prosecutor that this crime needed to be prosecuted
the president of course didn’t want to do that so we can pretty much surmise he was blackmailed into it
I therefore extrapulated that with the commutation of skooters’ sentence they would unleash the material they were holding over the administrations’ head
I gave it about two weeks before we saw the information start to be released
I am willing to bet the information now being released is due to the commutation of skooter and the failure to prosecute the real traitor.(darth)
I expect more info pronto…in a slow bleed, water dripping on head type of torture for whoever they’re angry with
the only thing that makes me feel I might be wrong is the fact that we all know it’s cheney that committed the treason and I would have thought they would just release information on him.
anyway, there it is, my hyppothesis.
whatcha think?
Some of the effects of our invasion of Iraq.
2 million refugees
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6916791.stm
My letter to Applebee’s:
I will no longer patronize Applebee’s until you drop your financial support of Bill O’Reilly. It is hateful people like Bill who help set a tone for hate in this country and I will not be a part of it.
As much as our firm’s technician’s and sales force will miss eating in your Naple’s Florida store, I will not sponsor hate. In fact, Tuesday was the first time our party-of-12 passed by your restaurant.
This morning, at our Friday meeting, I told my employees that they would have to reimburse me for meals purchased with their company credit card at Applebee’s. And take it from me: They will never spend their own money for meals eaten during company time.
I hope I can once again approve your restaurant for employees. Time will tell.
Sincerely
A mother & business owner
(This much I know: “It’s” is a contraction of it is; “they’re” is a contraction of they are.)
Bush has made his administration one of absolute silence on policies we should all know about. Congress has done no one a favor by ignoring this. It is so wrong for Bush to equate the American public with terrorism. We see it in his stooges’ (more than one stooge) letter to Senator Clinton. On KO last night, General Clark said the letter to Clinton had made the rounds in the Pentagon. You may remember that Gates said he hadn’t seen Clinton’s letter. The same Gates who was the President of A&M and will probably return there to oversee the Republics’ propaganda and Bush I’s library.
LibertyLee @ 42
I can’t believe this rubbish
a demorat cannot give any president the right to ignore the law
if you are insinuating they aer BOTH guilty of treason I agree, however if you are insinuating bush becomes imune for his depravity because he foound a corrupt democrat to go along with his treason
that would be a no
this program is stealing information, it’s stealing the secrets for profit of Americans and it’s stealing the personal information of powerufl people for blackmail
that is the ONLY reason they don’t want to get a judge to see if they are nto stealing
let’s make this clear;
the only thing getting a warrant does is prevent theives from stealing information
every warrant that has the slightest chance of bearing fruit is granted
searches can be conducted even before the warrant is granted
so, “liberty” lee, no, there is no “pass” for stealing my information
none
LibertyLee @ 42
Yeah, I think we’ll ultimately get a rather complete national discussion as to whether the Silvestre Reyes/John Yoo theory of the unitary executive is remotely in line with the U.S. Constitution.
Scarecrow @ 49
Good morning, Scarecrow. Whether mistake or not, the statement does count for a kind of an authorization so no one could go back later and say, well, “he didn’t know”.
Good Morning everyone….:)
I’m reposting from previous thread…I know off topic already…sorry….;)
I don’t if you had seen this yet, but
Look guys! We’ve arrived…..lol
Are bloggers part of the news media? The U.S. government — led by two of its most secretive agencies — is increasingly saying, “Yes, they are.”
Despite the rap that bloggers simply “bloviate” and “don’t try to find things out,” as conservative newspaper columnist Robert Novak once sniffed, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) have altered policies to indicate they’re taking blogs seriously, and a growing number of public offices are actively reaching out to the blogosphere.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thebl…..-oks-.html
Ghostman, 46:
The only things missing from your list of ways they can eavesdrop is maybe water cooler conversations, bedroom talk with one’s spouse, and maybe dreams.
But they probably are working on those.
dreamcatcher @ 61
The repubs are safe, they seem to be better at bedroom talk without their spouses.
jayt @ 24
This whole smorgasbord of illegal surveillance is part and parecel of what was (is) Poindexter’s Total Information Awareness program over which members of Congress and the public went apoplectic when it was broached in the early days of the Bush regime.
Maybe his ass needs to be hauled in front of Congress. He’s already a convicted liar from Iran-Contra days so we might even get an easy perjury trap going for whomever he might implicate.
I do agree, enough is enough, although all the things coming out now remind me of the late spring, early summer of ‘74 when the Nixon White House was in the throes of self-destruction. It all ended so quickly…maybe there will be an early denoument to this nonsense.
What we need is a graphic of what the GOP witch hunters were pursuing in the Clinton era versus what this administration is doing that isn’t being dealt with. Remember Travelgate? Pretty tame stuff compared to the wholesale destruction of the constitution.
tommy yum – (if you’re still about)
Don’t cross paths with you often and have been wanting to raise the possibility of having a get-together w/fire pups in NC, or ‘haps both Carolinas. Seems like there are quite a few of us at the Lake and it sounds like the Texas crew had an enjoyable event.
Wh’cha think?
Will be here and there for the next several hours and check back periodically to see if you’ve had a chance to respond.
Michael Moore gets subpoena over Cuba trip.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/….._0727.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02015.html
Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta write in The Washington Post: “Seven in 10 Americans believe that al-Qaeda is as strong as or stronger than it was before Sept. 11, 2001, and a majority of those with that view blamed President Bush for the terrorist network’s continued resilience.”
Waccamaw @ 64
I’m close and think a meet-up would be fun
Waccamaw @ 64
Oh, I’d love it.
dramcatcher and raven: Ha! Next, we’ll be checking our milk and bread for e-bugs!
Ghostman
phred @ 27
my working hypothesis is (comment from Gator90):
like glenn says, It is hard to reach any other conclusion.
eCAHNomics @ 65
WOW! could they be any more despicable? Just some red meat for the Wingnuts at the end of a very bad week for team Bushie.
LibertyLee @ 42
Well I guess we have to look at the source, WSJ then, as one cannot read the full article w/out subscribing, we have to assume that the writer has attribute. Any one have the url to full article?
Heard something on Randi Rhodes yesterday about a suit filed in NY Federal Court, essentially claiming that the Total Information Awareness program was initiated prior to 9/11.
Anybody got the skinny on that? Yes, I’m too lazy to Google.
Ghostman @ 69
No bread, no carbs!
Subway Serenade @ 29
The fact that the US isn’t a signatory to the Rome Statute and refuses to recognize the ICC.
Lee at 59 — Well, except for the fact that Reyes did not become the head of the intel committee until January of this year. And during 2003/2004 when Gonzales is saying these briefings took place, he was NOT a member of the Gang of 8 (Harmon was the ranking member of the House Intel at that time), and thus would not have been around to give permissions of any kind, misguided though they are.
After the fact okays are not the same as ones which occurred during the time in question. And, as long as we are talking about the quote, I’d want it straight from Reyes’ office and not the WSJ, whose reporting can sometimes be very well done, and other times very much stenography for a particular point of spin. I like to go straight to the source which, in this case, had no relationship to any briefings which may or may not have taken place in 2003/2004.
perris – I like it!
I’ll bet there are more players sitting around the table getting ready to throw out trump cards if Bush doesn’t humble himself, too.
jackie @ 60
No resting on laurels! The gasbag shows are fine-tuning their Sunday lineups right now. The lists of guests will start showing up on their websites later today.
Maybe it’s time bloggers start contacting these shows with “here’s what needs coverage” email before guests are announced rather than waiting to see which WH/minions/shills will be on. Lawd knows the Rove-Gillespie blast fax machine will be pressuring for their spin.
I for one would like to see more than self-important ol’ white men with books on Meet the Russert.
citizensue @ 71
moore is ready for this and he’s gonna embarrass them when he goes before a judge
this is gonna help promote his cuase not hurt it…the subpeona plays right into moores hands
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/….._0727.html
Somehow, I don’t think Moore is all that upset, or surprised, by the subpoena. After all, it’s more publicity for the movie. But even more importantly, it’s more publicity for the issue.
Gad, the bushies are stupid.
Morning everyone.
I for one am sick, tired, and afraid of constantly-expanding claims of Executive authority that run in complete opposition to everything Americans have been taught in Civics since time immemorial…If this stuff is not somehow undone, one can only hope that the Republicans are as in favor of despotic powers when Hillary or Edwards is President.
http://www.chelseagreen.com/2004/items/welcome
If you haven’t read this little book,it’s well worth the time. This stuff isn’t at all “new”really,it rises to the surface packaged as one thing or another. Then there’s an outcry,the program goes underground and resurfaces as something else with a different name.
Remember DARPA? That’s been repackaged as a science program for budding geniuses with robot building contests and the like. Anyone who thinks all the old insideous,nasty things that was about just went away is kidding themselves.
Anyhow,I highly recommend that book and checking out the links on that page.
Me3 @ 66
Please consider this NYT story via Raw Story: U.S. Officials Voice Frustrations With Saudis’ Role in Iraq
Prairie Sunshine @ 78
yep!
and I want to see someone more than Tim Russert hosting MTP
My comment is in the form of a letter I wrote yesterday morning with the intention of sending it to our Senators. I also posted it at TPM cafe as a response to M. J. Rosenberg’s “Josh is Right On the I Word”:
I’m thinking of faxing or e-mailing it to all the Democratic Senators if I can get their fax or e-mail addresses. Any suggestions?
perris @ 79
Could not agree Moore. *g* My money is on Mike. Every time they pull something like this it just serves to prove what a lock they have on teh stupit.
selise @ 70
Running out the clock has certainly been their game plan to date. They seem intent on going only so far as to embarrass the Rethugs such that they win big in 2008. As I have argued previously, this may seriously backfire on them, as it appears that they are putting party before country.
In light of the large percentage of the public already favoring impeachment (see Irish Jim at #34 above, among others), even without all the evidence fully presented as would it would be during the impeachment trial, one has to wonder what is holding the Dems back. This is what brings me to the speculation that either they are getting all their ducks in a row before they follow that course, or there is something they fear will be brought to the public’s attention that will make them look bad.
Perhaps Reyes and Harmon aren’t the only ones who rolled over. This is all speculation on my part, but if the Dems continue to refuse to impeachment, then they themselves will become suspect.
Ghostman @ 46
And, hypothetically, all of the above could be called “The Program” or “The Program the President approved.
Or, all of those could now be broken down into separate programs, because it spins better that way.
Scarecrow: I assume you have seen this from Marty Lederman, which includes the late press release from the Department of Justice.
Here is a section of the press release:
As several people have suggested, DOJ is saying that there was never any disagreement about the part where we spied on al-Qaeda. So, apparently they have chosen to ride on prong two, that there are other spying programs that have never been disclosed and about which there was serious disagreement. Commenter A on Lederman’s thread suggests that the Congressional people were only briefed on the limited segment of the program. This squares up Jane Harmon’s statements, but no one else’s.
When we have the closed door session, the Congressional people who were briefed need to be there as a check on the liar.
tommy yum -
And snowbird, I *was* thinking about how close you are to the eastern end of your state. *g*
OK, so how do we go about putting together a plan? I don’t do facebook so scratch that as a communication vehicle for me, at any rate.
Suggestions from the Texas crew would be greatly appreciated.
Off to run errands before the touroids clog the roads. Will check back later on this thread and the next one upstsream.
Offhand, I can think of two more possible components of NSA programs. First could be physical entry (black bag) to plant bugs or get papers.
Second could be to use the information gained by all of the other parts. I can’t make myself believe that they are just sitting on all this stuff without using any of it to further their ends.
Shorter Christy @ 76
“I’ve got my sunglasses on, and that shiny object wasn’t all that bright anyways”
Anyone believe that if Hillary is elected, there won’t be an “Impeach Hillary” movement within 24 hours of her inauguration? Calls for a Special Prosecutor to investigate Whitewater and Rose Law all over again? “What did she know, and when did she know it?” on Fox Noise?
Just a friendly reminder to all those Democrats who think treating Republicans with dignity or respect is the way to go. I have news for you-you’re going the wrong way on a one-way street.
Articles of Impeachment. Now, please.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 83
But… Bush is in love with Abdulla…
citizensue @ 71
You would think Micheal Moore would really like to show up, because he will be able to turn this into a win. That is unless he wants to pull a Harriet Meirs to make a point.
I had the pleasure of having dinner with Moore with about 20 other very involved Political Junkies in Athens several years ago. From my vantage Moore is brilliant, unaffected and incredibly well intentioned. During his visit to Athens Ohio he spoke to a large university and townie crowd about the war and the direction of our country. At one point the students who supported the war (mostly from the Republican party) began to shout go home Micheal and other insults. Moore stopped looked right at them and celebrated their right to protest and share their pro-war views.
He went on to compare how many of the young people in our surrounding area mostly small, rural, poor Appalachian towns where many young people join the military to access college etc. were serving but many of the middle and upper middle class young folk were not joining.
He then pulled out military registration forms and asked them to step up to the plate and come on up to the stage and sign up. Not one of them did. They shut up.
Moore is a master strategist focused on compassion, empathy, justice and truth.
You can be sure Moore will turn this subpoena into a win for justice!
Your MSM hard at work:
CNN.com’s headlines as of 10 am EST:
Drinking, sabotage reports shake NASA
Blast at privately owned spaceport kills 3
FBI chief appears to contradict Gonzales
CNNMoney: Economic growth tops forecasts
Blast heard at occupied Pakistan mosque 39 min
1 dies as SUV slams into Greyhound bus
Camera catches dramatic flood rescue
Crying toddler saves parents
Study: Marijuana may increase psychosis risk
CNNMoney: Does outsourcing to China pay?
Ticker: Clinton on Obama: This is getting ’silly’
911 call in Lindsay Lohan arrest released 10 min
Leonard Nimoy to be in new ‘Trek’ film 43 min
Grim kitty seems to predict death
500-pound man told he’s too fat to adopt
In other news, the sun “appears” to rise in the east.
Ann in AZ @ 85 asks
The brute force method is to get a list of the Dem senators, google each, and go to their web site and find their fax numbers. Every senator that I’ve looked for has at least one fax number available on their web site and usually two or more (DC as well as local offices)
LibertyLee @ 59
Nonsense. This is not any kind of authorization. Violation of FISA cannot be circumvented by any member of congress.
Me3 @ 94
The real story is the frustration the Saudis and everyone else in the region has with the Bush/cheney regime.
Here is another, suggestion, although there are so many government conspiracies to spy on Americans. Abramoff, and Ney cooked up a scheme for a Congress Wireless phone system. The company was Foxcom, which happened to be Isr**li.
========
The Abramoff scandal is getting personal for members of Congress. House leaders suspended a a multimillion-dollar wireless communications license that was improperly awarded to a Washington area firm in exchange for gifts from Abramoff. Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) got the license for Mobile Access, formerly Foxcom Wireless of Israel in exchange for campaign contributions, expensive meals, luxury travel and sports tickets.
Abramoff and Neil G. Volz, who went to work for Abramoff as a lobbyist after serving as Ney’s top aide, admitted in plea agreements this year that the wireless license was a favor for Abramoff in exchange for gifts.
tommy yum @ 73
Here’s a link to what Federeation of American Scientists wrote on it:
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31730.pdf
Prayers for Esten
The discussion seems to be about the 3/04 meeting in the White House. There has to be a lot of buzz about just what was being discussed in the news and within the administration and that would pretty much give all of us the basic parameters of just what the “meeting” was all about.
As I recall there was a lot of speculation about just how to go about legalizing the spying and how many hours after the fact did the judges have to sanction said spying.
Why can’t the Democrats go ahead and find “Fredo” to be an idiot and move to end his service causing the president to make another statement.
Waccamaw @ 90
We got hold of each other’s private e-mails (Facebook helped tremendously in that) and slowly built up from there. Our group began by ID’ing that we (and other who have joined the list) were in the Austin/San Antonio environs (approximately 100 miles apart). We initially thought about getting together on a Sunday for a show but settled on a relatively central location for a picnic, found a date that was possible for some of us and went from there.
casual observer @ 98
Statutes permit the President to act with the concurrence of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman and Ranking Members. Hence: the “gang of eight”.
“Leonard Nimoy to be in new ‘Trek’ film”
WOW, THAT’S HUGE!!! Spock in a new Star Trek film. WOW. FANTASTIC NEWS.
Meanwhile, Democrats continue to be mean to Alberto Gonzales while he shreds the Constitution. Ho-hum.
From the Arizona Republic:
Me3 @ 66
Interesting numbers — 50% of 70% would be 35%
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 83
Any coincidence that the NYT & WSJ have anti-Saudi stories in the last 2 days?
LibertyLee @ 59
I don’t see how this relates to Gonzales’ testimony or the legality of the “program” (quotes only because I don’t know what it is). Reyes was only a member of this committee, and would not have been briefed as a member of the gang of 8 until this year.
casual observer @ 98
Well, between Reyes’ authorization and the note from his Mommy, Bush, clearly is on solid legal ground.
And the Comment wheel goes into the Endless Spiral of Oblivion…anyone else having trouble? Testing..1…2…3.
Liberty Lee@42
Whatever Reyes may have said, do you actually think that the unitary executive invention is in accord with the constitution? Do you really believe such executive powers would be a good thing? Where did you take high school civics?
Ann in AZ @ 85
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
Media & Petition Resources
^^^ Send a letter to the MSM too
Prairie Sunshine @ 78
Great idea. I have done this in the past, writing to suggest guest. One guest I would really like to see is Juan Cole or an equivalent to interpret what Iranian President Ahminijad really said about Israel. Why would we trust the cakewalk in Iraq zealots interpretation of what Ahminijad said. Why not have an interpretor give an exact interpretation.
We have heard it repeated over and over again that he wants to “wipe Israel off the map” but Juan Cole and others have said that is not what he said.
I would like one of the mainstreamers like Chris Matthews attempt to confirm exactly what he said instead of repeating what the cakewalk folks repeat.
Last evening Matthews did not challenge either Hillary’s spokesperson or Stephen Hayes when they repeated many times that Ahminijad is a “Holocaust denier” and that he wants to “wipe Israel off the map”. We need to know exactly what the Iranian President said.
Lost in translation
http://www.informationclearing…..e13641.htm
http://www.juancole.com/2006/0…..o-any.html
Isreal is being far more aggressive towards Iran than Iran is being towards Israel. Richard Perle, Ariel Sharon basically demanded that the U.S. pre-emptively attack Iran three years ago at an A*P*C conference. Many of the cakewalk folks have been relentless in their demands of a pre-emptive attack on Iran
For those of you who think Hillary/Barack would make a dream ticket, and not the Bickersons, there is a new post ready, I think.
nicely constructed post Scarecrow. 46 certainly helped me – ignorance is a more blissful state, isn’t it?
Re “the program” Harman, who has been briefed in, has said that there is no reason the progam couldn’t be operated through FISA and that pulled the rug out a bit, at the time, from the assertions that it was do or die to continue the illegal program. The ex-FISA judgs have also basically said in testimony that Gonzales (and now McConnell’s) crap about exigencies and the court not being able to handle is just that – crap.
So now the same intell committee head who couldn’t even take a halfway decent stab at Sunni v. Shia or the ties of orgs like HEzbollah and HAmas and al-Qaeda (despite having served on the Committee b4 becoming its head), Reyes, is telling McConnell to go ahead and commit felonies without regard to any consequences. THis, after his recent statement that Gonzales is really a great guy and people should quit picking at him and thinking that he does his evil things with evil intent.
Whatever.
Feinstein has also been briefed in on the program and has said it’s not legal and introduced legislation (I think Harman’s was the best fwiw)
I think the “multiple progam” issue has two prongs. First, the parsing by Gonzales, which I think probably is trying to argue that the program the PResident acknowledged is the TSP 2.0 and so when he says there was no dispute on that, he isn’t counting disputes on TSP 1.0. But that pretty much begs the point on truly “other” programs, which may or may not have ever been briefed to anyone – the PResident and his Dept of Justice assert very broad State Secrets and foreign affairs rights (do you think anyone in Congress was briefed in about Larry Thompson sending Maher Arar off to be tortured in Syria?)
Basically, I don’t believe in the heroism of the heroes of the piece. IMO, the fact that Judge Taylor so promptly struck the TSP 2.0 program indicates it was felonious even in its prettied up, Comey-acceptable state and IMO the conflict wasn’t all that much over what was going on with the program. I think the heroes of the piece have shown willing over and over to approve and support and use DOJ to solicit criminal behaviour, provided the context was the CIC powers of the President. IMO, it isn’t so much that Gonzales et al started engaging in new activities, its that they shifted the arena of those activities and began to bleed them into the criminal justice system.
The context, btw, of all of this is that the PResident’s CIC powers to kidnap, falsely imprison, abuse, sexually humiliate, torture, etc. under DOJ smiley face opinions – was being very seriously challenged in the court system and the writing was on the wall that they were going to get some smacks. Just a couple of months or so earlier, Clement had argued Hamdan and Padilla to a hostile court and then, boom, Abu Ghraib photos.
So the consequences of the DOJ authorizations to abuse individuals and desecrate the law under the banner of warpowers were very much in the focus. Also, in the prior Dec or Jan, one of the torture victims (I think ARar, but maybe el-Masri) had filed suit and named specifically DOJ lawyers. So their little bubble of “we only give the ok to commit the crimes, we don’t actually commit them ourselves” was shattering before their eyes.
Bring in a new administration and things could look very bad indeed for people like Ashcroft et al. So with the SCOTUS cases looking bad and, despite the media gag on talking about things like el-masri and Arar, the pending lawsuits which made strong Torture act allegations against lawyers, it wouldn’t be the best time for judges to find out that DOJ was using illegal evidence in court cases. And yet, there had been lots of pressure on DOJ and FBI to go out and makes some cases and win them.
Now add in the context that there are reports, from about the same period of time, that the FISA court found out that FBI/DOJ had made applications for FISA warrants using info from the program in a manner that the FISA Chief judges had prohibited. Oh, and also that the Chief Judge was talking about taking scalps at the AG and FBI Dir level – since they are sign offs and the applications.
IMO, lawyers realized they were about to have some very personal and individual exposure to liabiity as the illegal program was being used in a bleed through manner in the FISA court and with the wall down – criminal proceedings (as well as also perhaps being used directly in other criminal proceedings – as the Oregon case highlights).
Call me a bitter cynical witch, but I tend to think that only the fact that the third branch, the judicial branch, might not be stacked enough to thoroughly insulate them all from personal responsiblity if bleed through was taking place was the motivator for the ‘palace revolt.’
fwiw
dakine01 @ 103
dakine01, if any of your group are in Doggett’s district, I urge you to join me in applying pressure regarding impeachment. He does respond to emails, but he is very reluctant to express his position regarding the constitutional crisis. He appears to be happy to pass very good progressive bills out of the house, only to see them moulder in the senate. His latest bill passed out of house is to deny funds for permanent bases in Iraq and to deny funds for the attempt to get Iraq to give up substantial rights to its own oil. Good stuff to be sure, but to me this is fiddling in the kitchen while the house burns down.
Boston1775 @ 88
I believe this is the key..
After reading Gonzo’s and Mueller’s testimony, there is some wiggle room against perjury in my humble opinion.. I am no attorney, but it seems to me that as long as they don’t specify the Exact program by Exact authorization or Project codes that they have NOT necessarily contradicted..
I wish that the HJC and SJC can access a very specific identification of each of these NSA programs and get testimony from Abu, using EXACT program identification.
He probably will try to dance around it, but either he answers direct questions or gets thrown in the Senate dungeon Spector described the other day..
When he repeatedly non-answered the question of WHO told him to go to Ashcroft’s bedside.. That told me all I needed to know..
mary, I would sure get me some integrity if I felt exposed.
james @ 75
Chebby will ignore the Hague just as American and British Oil interests ignored the rulings of the Hague concerning Iran and Mossadegh in the 50’s. They do not care. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, against international sentiment and warning from Colin Powell are fact. In Iran US and British “oil” used the CIA to put the Shah in power and removed the democratic nationalist Dr. Mossadegh. Anything sound similar here?
Executive Oil has commandeered our military to protect the interest of corporate oil at all costs. The sweet crude beneath Al-Anbar is the prize. Executive Oil is attempting to shove the Iraq Oil Law down the throat’s of Iraqis. Ask an Iraqi how he feels about the Iraq oil law. He sound a little like and American coal miner is you listen America. Meanwhile Bin Lauden Lives. If America can face the reality that everything is motivated by the need energy and for Exxon Mobile et als to continue its viability and stranglehold on America, you have a picture closer to reality.
The disgusting reality is the “asselphants” a sub party comprised of democrats and republicans in Congress have a common interest to protect corporations and corporate oil. Oil lubes the system like no other to protect its interests. Instead of eviscerating and losing America’s middle class, spending billions on an oil war, lets get rid of the “asselephants” and executive oil so the rule of law, domestic and international prevails. Otherwise, chebby and oil win while Americans and Iraqis continue to pay the price!
Mary @ 115 — I think the scenario you describe lies very close to the truth. While I appreciate Comey’s testimony, I have never been in the Comey-is-a-good-guy camp, Ashcroft either for that matter. I agree that once they saw they could be personally criminally liable, that’s when they hit the brakes. I don’t believe any of these guys were perched on high moral ground to benefit the greater good.
Why’s it always singular testimony, 5 minutes at a time?
I’d LUV to see all these disgusting perps put in the same hearing room to hash it out live, in color, up close, and personal. What’s the holdup?
Mary @ 116 –
exactly. there just is NO evidence of anything other than CYA.
i hope to be proven wrong.
we, the people, on our ignorance, know that we have been lied to. Our government has told us. We know that they are spying on the furriners, and we know that they are spying on everyone they choose. We know they have lied to congress, and they have committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
there is no waiting. I refuse to believe that anyone could still think there is anything less than criminal trials for the people that have taken over our government and created a fascist state.
Wake up Crow, this is 2 year old news and we have no time to allow them to go on. And in all respect, it is long since time to begin the impeachment hearings because of what we all know will happen when congress asks for the documents. They will not be provided.
There is a serious delaying tactic being employed by democrats that have control of congress and have specific means for resolving issues with the executive or judicial branch. They have done NOTHING
remember, they know what we know, and they know it is bullshit
Mary — thanks much for the history/context; I share your view that the “heroes” aren’t so much courageous as just CYA — and their dancing around the details that would reveal their own culpability/liability just confirmed it for me. Thanks for the comment.
oldtree @ 124
Hear Hear Oldtree! Exactly my point. The only thing stopping impeachment now are the Dems in Congress, and one just has to ask why?
OleHippieChick @ 122
Yes. I think it would be great to see them fighting to defend themselves against each others slams. Let the cat fight begin!
mary says: IMO, it isn’t so much that Gonzales et al started engaging in new activities, its that they shifted the arena of those activities and began to bleed them into the criminal justice system.
Question mary: when you talk of bleeding practices into the criminal justice system are you talking about actual torture – Padilla – used on others that we know nothing about?
Are you saying that lawyers condoned it by making false judgments about the breadth of the TSP 2.0 maybe?
phred @ 126
“Asselephants” and “Oil”
Closed hearings? No way! Open and accountable to the public. These people need to stand up and talk about these stupid programs before the American Public, not the Beltway Brahmin. The whole classification BS has been used too long to let officials cover their corrupt asses. And even if a gang of congress critters did wrong by signing onto the program, well we are more able to get their backs than if they let it remain a festering secret that Chimpy can hold over them.
I suspect that what they discussed at the hospital was the original program which was operating at the time and which Comey, et al objected to. Then they made modifications to satisfy the constitutional concerns expressed by DoJ and they now that consider that a different program.
That allows them to hang onto their limited modified hangout.
Luv ya, Scarecrow, but closed hearings? No way.
James Joyce @ 129
I caught “asselephants” in your earlier post, and I rather like it — your coinage or someone else’s?
Nonetheless, while asselephants and oil provide a big picture framework, what I’m after are specifics. Who exactly agreed to what and when? Again, entirely speculation at this point, but the intransigence of the Dems on impeachment has moved beyond puzzling for me into the realm of questionable…
(Lord-knows, wish I had time to read all these great comments- will have to try to ‘print’ so I can read while walking)
Excellent post.
I’m in a prickly mood lately which might be why I wonder… (Y’all are absolutely right btw.) NIf TSP means they (top to bottom) can listen in on phone calls for Anybody that comes to mind and not have to document that they have done so. By anybody, think if you had that capability. Wouldn’t You be listening in on your co-workers, boss, mother-in-law, DNC, newspeople, MSM executives, wealthy people, anyone whose name comes up in discussion, and on and on?
It perplexes me when Senate-moments come up (like during Sara Taylor about the “oath she made to the president”), why don’t Senators/Reps ASK what they are talking about. Continuously they jump to a logical assumption as if the person mis-spoke, when I think they did not or may not have. But by correcting them, we never know. Same with TSP versus NSA: why didn’t they ask anyone to give their definition of the program on record instead of jumping around and leaving a loophole?
(sorry to be incohesive today)
mui @ 130
Absolutely agreed. If in fact some of the Dems did something stupid, coming clean and impeaching Bush and Cheney will go a long way to restore the public’s trust in those who may have exhibited poor judgment.
My point is not to condemn such critters, but like a kid who lied ’cause he was afraid of a playground bully, to encourage them to tell the truth, so that the root of the problem can finally be corrected.
What’s criminal are the lengths the administration goes to in their effort to hide the nature of this program from Congress and the American public. I have little doubt that one day we’ll find out that they’ve been conducting illegal spying on a massive scale.
The way they’re so adament in their stonewalling makes them doubly corrupt.
dakine01 @ 97
The brute force method is to get a list of the Dem senators, google each, and go to their web site and find their fax numbers. Every senator that I’ve looked for has at least one fax number available on their web site and usually two or more (DC as well as local offices)
Maybe this would help:
http://www.senate.gov/general/…..rs_cfm.cfm
I offered this at the Washington Post:
Do I have this “discrepency” correct?:
1. Previously unknown to We, the People — this administration initiated a “terrorist surveillance program,” which the president approved.
2. When it came time to renew the program — which, by now, the president has been forced to explain to We, the People — those who studied what was really allowed under the program knew the administration was overstepping its authority and wouldn’t allow it.
3. Part 2 is what Mr. Gonzales says is not part of the president’s program, even though it was part of reality.
4. Thus, Mr. Gonzales can maintain he was correct in saying there was no serious division over the president’s program. Only trouble is that “The Program” wasn’t limited to what the president’s speech-writers had provided to We the People.
5. We the People have had more than enough.
phred @ 135
So the Gang of Eight at that time included Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller,Jane Harman, Bill Frist, Tom DeLay and Pat Roberts? I browsed TPM muckraker comments. I think it’s important to know.
LibertyLee @ 104
Show me the statute that states the president may violate FISA, with or without the agreement of any legislator, or subcommittee, or committee.
“liberty” lee, unfortunately I cannot allow you to give up your civil liberties and constitutional rights, as in doing so you effect my own. You are dead weight in the struggle to protect constitutional government.
mui @ 139
Over at TNH, Marcy listed the eight as Denny Hastert, Porter Goss, and 6 of the 7 you list (she does not include Tom Delay). But she does say “best as I can remember”, so it wouldn’t hurt to double check.
I know Nancy has said she objected to whatever it was they were briefed on, but given her adamant opposition to impeachment, I wonder if there is something that she may not have objected to that is holding her back.
phred @ 141
Seems there is a lot of blackmailing going on here. All parties are blackmailers and blackmailees. Some are more dangerous than others.
Swopa said that Mueller said that Gonzales lied. Not true and bad reporting at that.
marymccurnin @ 142
That is certainly possible, but as I’ve said, I’m speculating. Still, the fact that the full intelligence committees weren’t briefed as the National Security Act requires, suggests that things are not what they seem. And as it is, they seem none too good at all.
I don’t know if there are any lawyers around, but I’m curious, would members of the Gang of 8 be legally liable in any way if they realized that their briefing did not conform to NSA requirements yet did nothing to rectify the situation?
Also, as an aside, Porter Goss had to resign from the #3 spot at CIA because he was implicated in the Cunningham scandal. Over at TNH there’s been some discussion of whether Lam was getting too close to illegal spying in her investigation of that particular hornets nest. There is still a lot of unraveling to be done here.
phred @ 87
Anyone “read in” to a Sensitive Compartmented Information Top Secret program (SCI-TS) like the TSP would not be legally allowed to confirm or deny its existence. It is my understanding that after the NYT/WAPO revealations about the program, and the President’s acknowledgement, administration briefers went to everyone in the program and reminded them of this standard NSA practice.
casual observer @ 140
Christy Hardin Smith @ 76
Christy is absolutely correct. And Jane Harman had THIS to say about her view on the briefings back in
On December 17, 2005, six members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence requested a briefing for the full Committee concerning certain publicly-reported activities of the National Security Agency. As you know, since 2003, I have been a member of the so-called Gang of Eight – which includes the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the congressional intelligence committees. As a member of the Gang of Eight, I have received periodic briefings on highly classified programs. However, with respect to the NSA program that you have disclosed, I have reviewed the law and now believe that the practice of briefing only certain Members of the intelligence committees violates the specific requirements of the National Security Act of 1947.
The National Security Act requires that “The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States . . . .” 50 U.S.C. § 413(a)(1). The Act makes clear that the requirement to keep the committees informed may not be evaded on the grounds that “providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.” 50 U.S.C. § 413(e).
The Act provides for one exception to the President’s duty to keep all committee Members fully and currently informed of intelligence activities. In the context of a covert action, the President may, if he concludes that “it is essential . . . to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States,” limit notification to the Gang of Eight. 50 U.S.C. § 413b(c)(2). That procedure applies by the terms of the statute to covert actions, not intelligence collection activities.
-snip
The NSA program does not qualify as a “covert action.” That term is defined in the National Security Act as “activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent.” 50 U.S.C. § 413b(e). Covert actions, pursuant to the statute, do not include “activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence . . . .” 50 U.S.C. § 413b(e)(1).
As I read the above, Harman was not fully informed of the program until Bush “publically announced” it after the leaks. The rationale for keeping it secret from the Committee was spurious…and not a viable rationale for keeping the Intelligence Committees ” fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States”.
Thanks cinnamonape for posting the relevant bits about the National Security Act.
NMvoiceofreason, as I read your comment, it seems to imply that if a Gang of 8 member understood that a briefing they received was illegal under the NSA (i.e., that it referred to an intelligence program that was not covert) there is nothing they can do to insitgate an investigation/prosecution of a clear violation of the law? That seems like the kind of loophole you could drive a truck through. The administration can claim to have briefed Congress (or at least the Gof8) knowing they did so in violation of the law, yet NO ONE could bring charges? Seems like that there is a loophole that ought to get closed.
And whatever this program was, it certainly was so problematical that both Acting AG Comey and FBI Director Mueller, as well as Sr, Staffmembers at both the DOJ and FBI were willing to resign if it was enacted.
The FBI’s involvement implies that this wasn’t merely an NSA program, but actually involved agents either tapping phones or extracting data from domestic sources unavailable to the NSA. Harman’s comments suggests it wasn’t a “covert op”, at least not in the legal sense…but “intelligence gathering”.
But clearly it fell well wide of the law, given Comey’s, Meuller’s and Ashcrofts reactions to the efforts of Card and Gonzo. And note that Gonzo knows that he has to shield the President from acknowledging it, and approving it. There was clearly an effort to provide the President with “plausible deniability” in Gonzo’s testimony yesterday.
Find out what that “program” was and you’ll likely find impeachable offenses.
cinnomonape at 147
Amazing. So all this talk of the Gang of 8 being “read in” has nothing to do with the time frame in question. Apparently executive privilege overruled the National Security Act of 1947 and they weren’t informed.
The Gang of 8 becomes a red herring if they weren’t “read in”. However, now that they are read in, they can’t speak about the program.
uneffingbelievable.
Thanks for the relevant bits of the National Security Act cinnamonape.
NMvoiceofreason, if I read your comment correctly, the Gang of 8 could be briefed on a program that violates the NSA (i.e., an intelligence program that is not covert) and they could not do anything to initiate an investigation/prosecution? That’s a shocking loophole. The administration could then claim to brief Congress as required (knowing it violated the NSA) yet NO ONE could bring any charges? That’s a loophole that needs to get closed ASAP.
I just got a “duplicate comment” error, but the original has not posted for some reason (after 3 tries) — any suggestions?
Ahh, it finally came up — no idea what the glitch was…
phred @ 151
Hence, Rockefeller’s letter to Shooter…
phred @ 150
I think that what you mean is that they could be briefed on a program that violated FISA or perhaps was a “domestic covert” operation and might be handcuffed.
There are laws regarding Federal Officers failing to report Criminal Acts, particularly by those using the auspices of office to undertake those acts.
It’s called “misprision of felony”. Title 18 Section 4 of the U.S. Code
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc…..-000-.html
mui @ 132
Methods of surveillance are legitimately classified, hence the need for the basic information to be provided in closed session.
However, once that happens, the briefed official have an obligation to let us know in public whether the govt is currently violating the law and if so, whether govt officials covered it up, and lied about it to congress. And what they’ll do to make sure the govt operates within the law and hold lawbreakers accountable.
cinnamonape @ 154
Yep, that’s what I meant. So I looked at the link, but here is what puzzles me… Lets say a member of the Gang of 8 knows that the administration is committing a criminal act, but in order to report that fact they would have to explain what they were briefed on wouldn’t they? And they can’t talk about a classified program. So, in order to get around this Catch-22, is the only place to lodge a complaint with a FISA judge or is there another way to go about this?
Another legal question I have here is this…
Lets say the Gang of 8 was briefed on a program and they did not approve of it. How exactly can they prevent it being carried out?
And if it was still carried out by the administration against the Gof8’s wishes, to whom would they file a legal complaint? The FISA court?
I guess what I’m getting at is Rockefeller was briefed about something that bothered him enough to write a letter. And the assumption seems to be that because of the classification of the program, that was all he could do. He couldn’t complain to his colleagues, and he couldn’t file a complaint in open court. So aside from chastising Cheney, for all the good that did, what legal remedy is there for a situation like that?
Could he have filed a complaint with the FISA court? What else might he have been able to do other than locking a copy of the letter in his safe?
phred @ 133
cinnamonape @ 147
Cinnamonape, On the day of the hospital visit, the Gang of 8 was briefed. So, is it Harmon’s contention that they were not “fully and currently informed”?
In other words, is she saying that until 2005, they didn’t really know what was going on, much like Ashcroft? Ashcroft, according to TPM, was signing off, every forty five days, on a program he hadn’t examined.
It wasn’t until Comey came in and insisted on examining the Program. He assigned his assistant, Goldsmith, the task of examining the Program and make decisions on its legality.
Goldsmith and Comey brought their information to Ashcroft and the three of them believed the Program to be illegal.
So at this point, it’s looking to me like Harmon is saying the Gang of 8 was kept in the dark just like Ashcroft.
I wonder then, what got under Rockefeller’s skin, causing him to write the two handwritten letters. Did he find out what was going on even though it was not through official meetings?
James Joyce @ 159
Thanks for the link, clearly the Rethugs are winners in the oil industry contributions, but perhaps your point is if the small percentage that goes to Dems only goes to a few individuals, those would be the ones who would cooperate with Rethug oil policy.
FWIW, my view of things is broader than oil. Oil is a lucrative component of the larger whole, but I think the neocons had a lot more in mind than just one sector of the economy by going into Iraq. They envisioned the oil reserves as paying for this little adventure of theirs, but I think they had hoped to go way beyond that. I read an article a long time ago (I have looked for the link, but failed to track it down yet) that made the case that the neocons wanted to use Iraq as an example of how great unfettered “free” markets would be in a system that had a minimal government. My own take on this though, is that while this would have been quite the feather in their cap, their real objective was here at home, to reinstitute robber baron capitalism with the wealthy comprising a noble class that would govern in a monarchical system, having left the Constitution in tatters. In my view, this is what Rove’s permanent majority was all about, nothing less than the destruction of our representative democracy in favor of a monarchy in all but name.
Update: I’ve added a link to Marty Lederman’s dissection of the “programs” confusion.
THOSE ‘OTHER SPYING ACTIVITIES’ THAT ALBERTO WAS REFERRING TO
mc @ 80
As someone said, just red meat for the rightwing blogs and Fox. Bread and circuses for the masses.
160 – Harman & Covert activities.
With respect to the quoted passages, here is what is going on.
In general, with respect to intelligence collection and other intelligence activities, the National Security Act requires the White House to Brief ALL MEMBERS of the Intelligence Committees. Not just the Gang of 8 – all members of the committees. There is no “out” where the President can claim the information is classified in order to keep from briefing the full intelligence committees on the information.
However, for a small (hopefully) subset of classified information, the Executive Branch is allowed to limit briefings to just the “gang of 8″ and not the whole committees. That subset is classified information about “covert action” that the Exec Branch is going to undertake. There is a statute that defines covert actions and it specifically exempts out intelligence collection activities as not being “covert actions”
So Harman, in those passages, is merely saying that it was wrong and continues to be wrong to only brief the Gang of 8 on the TSP or other surveillance activities and that the whole committees should be briefed.
There are other aspects of briefing in FISA that she doesn’t refer to and that may have an impact, but her Nat Sec Act analysis seems spot on.
Thanks Mary
Elliott @ 39
That sounds like the Total Information Awareness program which was supposed to have been dismantled long ago.
Mary @ 165
So if a member of the Gang of 8 realized the briefing they had received legally SHOULD have been given to the full intelligence committees, to whom could they have filed a complaint? The FISA court? Someone else? Or would they not be able to complain given the classified nature of the briefing?
Frank33 @ 100
It’s a perfect fit with the national emergency software system provided by a Saudi Arabian company.
Maybe it was classified, but Harman’s mention that it wasn’t ‘covert’ under the law suggests it was run domestically. That would clearly put them in the awful spot mentioned above, of being tied up and unable to talk about it, despite it being illegal activity.
The cure is probably Pentagon Papers-like disclosure. But, none of those folks wants to risk it, so they’re trying ot get to the awful truth another way.
I wish them luck.
P.S. Mueller seemed awfully happy during the Conyers hearing the other day. I’d guess some of these folks will be awfully happy to get out from under this terrible situation and the whole Bush era. I wonder if Congressional Repubs can be convinced of the same.